> I think it would help if the sentence I originally quoted:
>
> # Similar to the 'display' property, conditional processing attributes
> # only affect the direct rendering of elements and do not prevent
> # elements from being successfully referenced by other elements (such as
> # via a 'use').
>
> were followed by something like:
>
> # However, the conditional processing attributes in the content that
> # must appear to be deep-cloned into the generated tree are processed
> # normally.
>
> (I'm a little unsure of the terminology to use since the whole concept
> of deep cloning is within a "has the same visual effect as if" clause.)
L. David,
I recently was working through this section as well and with the help of
Bjoern Hoermann I came up with a way to patch the rendering tree as you
render without cloning-- simply: removing the referenced node, appending
it to the use, patching the attributes based on the referenced element
type (saving attributes for restoration after rendering the current
<use>), rendering (treating the children of the <use> as you would a <g>
or <svg> depending on the type of referenced element), and restoring the
previous attributes and structure.
Essentially, this lends usefulness to "has the same visual effect"
because it is a visual effect rather than a structural generated/cloned
tree. I am not sure if this helps your question, but it certainly helped
me understand that phrase in in SVG 1.1.
My hope is that treating the "shadow tree" as read-only is not impacted
as such an implementation would be in violation. Hence, phrasing around
"deep-cloning" has me a bit worried.
Cheers,
Jeff Rafter